kyoshinikon said:
Thom asked a Nikon rep about this a year or 2 ago and they gave their half-as$ed "our customers don't wan't this" Maybe the majority don't but I have seen them repeatably shoot themselves in the foot over that statement... They often seem to have poor R&D

I have seen a few interviews where they still were saying no one want's one even with the X100 sales numbers came out. Research and Design groups from Canon and Sony have made similar statements. The Oly's is really impressive on all levels - basically it is a pro camera with a m4/3 sensor. The Fuji is there also but with DX. The Fuji's IQ is just amazing without the AA filter.

I have been seriously looking at Fuji and Oly's systems (as I do just as much street as other) and if you buy comparable glass for a 3 lens set-up you're looking at $3,300 for a system. Anyone thinking a design like this would be cheap is kidding themselves. (If I only had $6,500 for a D800e and one of these.)

They often seem to have poor R&D

Do you mean market research kyoshi?

Thom asked a Nikon rep about this a year or 2 ago and they gave their half-as$ed "our customers don't wan't this" Maybe the majority don't but I have seen them repeatably shoot themselves in the foot over that statement... They often seem to have poor R&D

I’m by no means an expert on camera development but I imagine Nikon could take “off the shelf” Technology to build this, let’s call it the “Photographer’s camera”, and reduce the development cost to the minimum. Software features, they can pack as many software features in as they want, there should be no additional cost there, just use already developed sofeware. Use a body, sensor combo already developed.

Now the question for the group where I don’t have the answers, how much could you save by taking away all those things I don’t need? Remove HDMI out, USB, GPS, etc… and keep the sensor, metering, autofocus and one CF slot? Oh yes and “screw video”.

Use no new technology, just what’s needed to create beautiful images!

@rplst8

Oh, yes.....

One of these with a digital back. This is one of my F bodies from the 60's

msmoto said:
Great thoughts on this thread, especially the "screw the video". But, as noted, this is really not something which takes any space.

I have nearly no need for video, though admittedly the feature is nice in a pinch. That said, I would want none of the "video" options taking up valuable button/dial/lever space. I'd be OK with a mode dial having a video setting, but I don't want to waste one inch of space on the body for it. The video button on the D4 and D800 is unwanted from my perspective, and I would not want to see this on a digital FG or F3.

So, why does not NIKON make a camera like this? My guess is that marketing says, OK, it costs us $3.7 million to develop a new camera. We must sell 300,000 making $123 per unit to break even. The retail of the camera will be about $1995 to obtain the profit. Market sampling suggests about 50,000 people might buy this. NIKON shows loss of $2.45 Million... decides not to develop the NIKON FG-D.......and it goes downhill from there......

I mostly agree, the market would be pretty tiny. Maybe Nikon will use the sales of the Fuji X-Pro1 to gauge that. The fact that the X-Pro1 sells at all says there is *some* market for these high-end, well built niche cameras.

I am wondering, if we are to look at what we really want in a camera, the maximum performance capabilities , what we would design. For me, I actually believe I do not know what I need. This may sound a bit crazy, not a problem, but the technology is so vast, that I cannot even begin to understand the potential of a camera's design. So, being blessed to have a D4 in hand, and I truly feel blessed to be able to use this, I find it has more than I can use. Slowly, I am gathering knowledge on tis potential and attempting to use this. But, I am wondering if a lot of the other new NIKONs might also have some really super abilities and will fill the needs of the folks who would like a digital FG. And, who knows, maybe there is a digital back for the FG...... didn't someone do this for the F at one point or am I dreaming?

Personally, I know what I want. I want a simple to use, well built, featureless, camera with the best image quality possible.

I shot film years ago, and recently got back into it as a casual "for the fun of it" thing and I can't say enough about how fun it was to shoot on an old F3 and manual focus lenses. I find that the F3 is way way way more portable than a D700/800 or a D200/300. Sure other DSLRs (D3100/D5100/D7000) are more portable, but their finders suck and use with MF lenses is just horrid.

The other thing that sucks about using MF lenses with the D300 and smaller is that the field of view is just not the same as was with 35mm.

Nikon has like 60 years of great MF glass out there, the last 30 being some of the best, many of which they still make today! If they made a digital camera with ~D800 image quality that was built for these lenses that was about the size of an FG or F3 with the same build quality, looks, and ergonomics, I would buy it.

Great thoughts on this thread, especially the "screw the video". But, as noted, this is really not something which takes any space.

So, why does not NIKON make a camera like this? My guess is that marketing says, OK, it costs us $3.7 million to develop a new camera. We must sell 300,000 making $123 per unit to break even. The retail of the camera will be about $1995 to obtain the profit. Market sampling suggests about 50,000 people might buy this. NIKON shows loss of $2.45 Million... decides not to develop the NIKON FG-D.......and it goes downhill from there......

I am wondering, if we are to look at what we really want in a camera, the maximum performance capabilities , what we would design. For me, I actually believe I do not know what I need. This may sound a bit crazy, not a problem, but the technology is so vast, that I cannot even begin to understand the potential of a camera's design. So, being blessed to have a D4 in hand, and I truly feel blessed to be able to use this, I find it has more than I can use. Slowly, I am gathering knowledge on tis potential and attempting to use this. But, I am wondering if a lot of the other new NIKONs might also have some really super abilities and will fill the needs of the folks who would like a digital FG. And, who knows, maybe there is a digital back for the FG...... didn't someone do this for the F at one point or am I dreaming?

Size really isn't that important to me. I'd say the smallest body that they can put a FX sensor in. I don't like anything smaller than the DX00 size. But again image quality will be number one I can be flexable on size.

R8R said:
You guys are on the right track. It doesn't have to be "retro", just small and simple with image quality being the number one concern.

Take something like a D40 or D3100 size body.

Make it magnesium and weather sealed.

Screw the video.

Stick a full frame sensor in it, maybe 12-16mp. If you have to make is a little taller than a D40, no worries.

DO give it excellent high ISO performance.

DO give it an aperture indexing ring to work with AI lenses.

DO give it a screw drive focus motor to work with non-AFS lenses.

DO give it external controls for all the essentials

DON'T fill it full of gimmicky effects and scene modes. Make it a small, high quality, rugged stills DSLR.

I agree, I'd seriously like a product like that- for me it's called the D7000. :D

I don't think it would be a problem (product positioning-wise) for Nikon. I mean, both the Nikon F2 and the FM2 were both built like a tank and took the same lenses. It didn't mean that the FM2 took sales away from the F2.

If it does about 4 fps, the D800 replacement does about the same but has more mp, the pros get more choice and has a reliable small backup FX body.

Win win for everyone.

Video would most likely stay though- it doesn't take that much more circuitry to do video.

Minor problem, you couldn't fit a full frame pentaprism into a D40 or D3100 body (you'd be looking at 80% or less frame coverage) they are simply too small. Also, there is no room in the body for a screw drive motor (there is a reason the low end bodies lack it, besides price). You'd need a camera body that is at least the size of the D90, or D7000 to fit all the things you want.

You guys are on the right track. It doesn't have to be "retro", just small and simple with image quality being the number one concern.

Take something like a D40 or D3100 size body.

Make it magnesium and weather sealed.

Screw the video.

Stick a full frame sensor in it, maybe 12-16mp. If you have to make is a little taller than a D40, no worries.

DO give it excellent high ISO performance.

DO give it an aperture indexing ring to work with AI lenses.

DO give it a screw drive focus motor to work with non-AFS lenses.

DO give it external controls for all the essentials

DON'T fill it full of gimmicky effects and scene modes. Make it a small, high quality, rugged stills DSLR.

iris chrome, I like where you're going! Give me a FX sensor, the ability to mount Ai lens, the rest I can compromise on. Get rid of video, make it a camera for photography.

Give me the highest quality image at the lowest price. I'd call it a poor mans D800.

The problem I see is that a lot of the cost is going to be in the sensor.

TaoTeJared said:
When you say "Contacts" you are referring to the notch in the aperture ring correct? Putting a Non-Ai can mess with the aperture index tab on the body for sure.

The only thing I have ran into is my really old Ai converted 50mm has a metal flange protruding that needed to be filed off for the digital cameras (DX at least) so the mirror wouldn't hit it.

Well, believe you are correct. Somehow I was thinking it was an electrical contact, but that may be a long time later. I agree, something on the lens had to be cut down to avoid the hit. Maybe I can check this tomorrow. But, the point is, the optics of 1960's do not even come close to what we have today. The resolution is no where near as good and all the usual suspects are present as well. So, it would make little sense to modify any old lenses.

TaoTeJared said:

Film was a couple of hairs thick - the sensors are much larger and the digital boards take up a lot more room than just a spool of film. Kodak for a while made a digital back that was huge (about 10 maybe more year ago) and even if you cut that down, there are a lot more issues than just sticking one in there. Olympus has some neat videos on their designing the OM-D 5 and they thought the same thing, but then had to scrap everything and start from scratch.

The film was thin yes, but there is a good bit of room between that and the back cover. The pressure plate behind it is usually a few millimeters thick. Also, no one is saying it can't be thicker, or even slightly bigger over all.

Electronic components keep getting smaller and smaller every year. If they can make a small camera like the Canon Elph series, I don't think shrinking the electronics is the problem. The OM-D is a nice step, but if they can do it, and do it in such a small body, there is no reason they can't do it in an F3 sized package.

R8R said:
Please make a simple, small, easy to use, full manual control, magnesium chassis, FULL FRAME, digital stills body. Leatherette grip would be nice while you're at it.

andrewz said:
What features would you strip out of a camera that would make it less expensive?

Interesting thread. I'll play.

Things that could be done away with:

High FPS
Video
Insane AF
High ISO (even throw in some grain)
Flash
3" LCD (make smaller or even none)
Connectivity Outputs (USB, HDMI, GPS, etc.)

It would be an interesting camera especially if the price is low enough ($500? Yeah right!) BUT I highly doubt such camera would sell much..

Well I've always said that I wanted a metal bodied, weather sealed DX D40 (or D3100). I mean, I looked at a Nikon FM2, and thought, well why couldn't they make current offerings smaller? I mean, I wouldn't expect it to do 11 fps, but I'd make do with 4 fps.

The same could go for a FX body.

The OMD is a real beaut though isn't it? I think they should have saved space inside by giving it an electronic viewfinder and made it full frame - OMG if they kept the shutter ring on the lens mount and the aperture on the lens a la OM1 & 2, I'd get one.

>>> And Third, Already been done - Olympus OM-D E-M5 16 MP Live MOS Interchangeable Lens Camera with 3.0-Inch Tilting OLED Touchscreen <<<

Not realy, that's not fullframe......

msmoto said:
the old "F" mount lenses from the pre-electric days (non Ai Type before 1977) if put on a camera built after 1977 with the contacts on the body for Ai, will chew the contacts off the new bodies. All the old lenses required a modification which was done by NIKON for several years, then others did this.

When you say "Contacts" you are referring to the notch in the aperture ring correct? Putting a Non-Ai can mess with the aperture index tab on the body for sure.

The only thing I have ran into is my really old Ai converted 50mm has a metal flange protruding that needed to be filed off for the digital cameras (DX at least) so the mirror wouldn't hit it.

rplst8 said:
There's no reason this couldn't all fit in an FG or F3 body, there's all that room left over where the film used to go! I'm sure it would need to be a little "thicker" to put a preview screen on the back and some control buttons for menus, ISO, WB, and playback.

What we really all want is a camera that is made for manual control, with a big, bright viewfinder designed for manual focus, that is full frame, AI/AI-s compatible, that is smaller than the current FX bodies but not puny like that OM-D, retro styling with solid metal build quality, and that is less than say $1500.

Film was a couple of hairs thick - the sensors are much larger and the digital boards take up a lot more room than just a spool of film. Kodak for a while made a digital back that was huge (about 10 maybe more year ago) and even if you cut that down, there are a lot more issues than just sticking one in there. Olympus has some neat videos on their designing the OM-D 5 and they thought the same thing, but then had to scrap everything and start from scratch.

Don't get me wrong - I would like to see one too, but it is much more difficult that a passing thought would make it seem.

There are people who have hacked Digi cams and stuck the sensors in the back of old cameras - never saw one larger than a small sensor though. I have often thought about buying an old D40is camera and tacking a whack at it. Maybe I might someday :)

R8R said:
Dear Nikon,

I love my little FG film body. Simple, full frame, and metal.

Please make a simple, small, easy to use, full manual control, magnesium chassis, FULL FRAME, digital stills body. Leatherette grip would be nice while you're at it.

12mp would suffice.

Beat Fuji at their own game.

Thank you,

- Everybody

I want the same thing, but I want it in an F3 body.

However, I think the reason these won't ever be made is they won't help sell new lenses. The reason everyone wants this is so they can pull out their old AI and AI-s lenses. At least, that's what I want to do.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as they put in a good microprism/split prism viewfinder, I'd be happy.

There's no reason this couldn't all fit in an FG or F3 body, there's all that room left over where the film used to go! I'm sure it would need to be a little "thicker" to put a preview screen on the back and some control buttons for menus, ISO, WB, and playback.

What we really all want is a camera that is made for manual control, with a big, bright viewfinder designed for manual focus, that is full frame, AI/AI-s compatible, that is smaller than the current FX bodies but not puny like that OM-D, retro styling with solid metal build quality, and that is less than say $1500.

TaoTeJared said:

But let me guess - you want to use your Nikon lenses because you don't want to spend any more money. (sorry being a Sh!* today)

Well, maybe, Tao, but the old "F" mount lenses from the pre-electric days (non Ai Type before 1977) if put on a camera built after 1977 with the contacts on the body for Ai, will chew the contacts off the new bodies. All the old lenses required a modification which was done by NIKON for several years, then others did this.

Now I understand the FG was built from about 1982 to 1986, so it was using Ai lenses, but often folks obtain old lenses for old cameras and may not be fully aware of the difference in the mounts.

And, having not tried this with a newer body, I suspect if one does force a non Ai lens into a post 1977 body, the results are catastrophic.

Now that is some good old history, and some of it may even be close to the truth. But R8R, please add something to our chat, here.

First, you can't get a FX or DX in that body yet due to the tech. Second, you can't get a mirror and sensor in those bodies.

And Third, Already been done - Olympus OM-D E-M5 16 MP Live MOS Interchangeable Lens Camera with 3.0-Inch Tilting OLED Touchscreen

But let me guess - you want to use your Nikon lenses because you don't want to spend any more money. (sorry being a Sh!* today)

Nikon had the chance on the J1/V1 and they have obviously decided that making a new camera with retro looks is a stupid idea. Meanwhile Fuji and Oly are cleaning up the market. Honestly, after the X100, X-pro 1, and this OMD I don't think there will be much of a market left to grab.

My guess is that the reason NIKON does not make a camera such as a "digital FG" is that no one would purchase it. The demand is for quality photos, and this is accomplished via new technology. A D3200 may be the model which might correspond to a "digital fG" While the older bodies were "fun" to hold on to... I have two "F" bodies from the 60's, the fact is ergonomically, my new D4 is a dream come true. Carries on the finger tips. Easily switched from horizontal to vertical. The controls, once an understanding of the algorithm is mastered, are intuitive. The old bodies never did any of this. Difficult to hold on to, awkward to handle in either position relative to newer models, and virtually no capabilities to meet demanding situations.

So, that is my take. In spite of what I have said, the old ones sure feel good to hold, however!

That’s a good question. Is it possible to manufacture a simple, no bells and whistles full frame camera? I think it may be difficult the nature of the beast is more complex and more features are better.

What features would you strip out of a camera that would make it less expensive?

Dear Nikon,

I love my little FG film body. Simple, full frame, and metal.

Please make a simple, small, easy to use, full manual control, magnesium chassis, FULL FRAME, digital stills body. Leatherette grip would be nice while you're at it.

12mp would suffice.

Beat Fuji at their own game.

Thank you,

- Everybody